muslims in the military

[pankaye]

who says Jehovah witnesses are not Christians? they just follow a different interpretation of the bible.

But if someone thinks killing in the name of religion is right it can have many more interpretations than just killing people who don't belong to your religion.

Yes, I agree, but what are you relating it to? I dont get it.

I was talking about the articles you had linked earlier on this thread.
After reading those articles that especially the one about muslim student thinking it alright to kill in the name of religion I just wanted to point out that, depending on how the question(s) is posed in the survey you would have very different interpretation than what the respondents meant. In different cultures religion plays a much more important role in the lives of people than most western country. Here in the west religion plays a less important role. Here the law is above almost everything else. in some parts of the world religion is the law.

During The Troubles in N. Ireland I am sure a lot of the IRA terrorist thought they were killing and maiming in the name of their religion.
I would think catholics in Ireland and everywhere else in the world who supported the IRA thought they were right to do so in the name of their religion. some who would never condone terrorism still supported the idea of defending the interest of N Irish catho;ics

[pankaye]

Another point and my main point really is that if a christian wears a cross to work and is fired because of the cross then he has very much the right to take it to court and prove that it is fudemental to his religion. Don't blame the muslim who has fought for her right to wear her hijab and veil in public places.

[pankaye]

As for Jehovah Witnesses and their intepretation(s) believe you me their belief or rather non belief in the holy trinity is based on scripture. As a practicing catholic I strongly disagree with their view but it is based on certain sections of the new testament. In fact most of their belief is based only on Cannonical Bible and nothing else unlike say Catholics who base it on the Cannonical Bible, Apochrypha and tradition.

[pankaye]

If islamic teachings teach hate of anyone who is not a muslim and that to lie if it benefits islam is allowed, should muslims be allowed to join the military.

As it has been pointed out by some people Islam doesn't teach hate. It is just some interpretations by some crazy preachers. Don't forget prolife Christian fundementalists who bomb abortion clinics. don't forget that the colonisation and slave trade was started by people whose intention was to convert the natives or the crusades in the holy lands

[_Mark_]

Don't blame the muslim who has fought for her right to wear her hijab and veil in public places.

I didn't, i blame the government, if i was to open the doors to my house to every tom dick and harry that wanted to come in, the other people in my house would have every right to blame me for any problems it brought.

During The Troubles in N. Ireland I am sure a lot of the IRA terrorist thought they were killing and maiming in the name of their religion.

I dont mind having a normal discussion on most points but this one is fecking rediculous.

Any terrorist group is vermin and the killing of them is of no problem to me or my morals.

Why do people insist on talking about the crusades when there is a discussion on muslims, no one is alive now that contributed to the crusades, it has nothing do do with people today, the same way as people who still hate the germans because of hitler, there is almost no-one left to be angry with they are nearly all dead!

People should be more concerned about what is going on today, and what effects it has on their lives, and their childrens lives.

If someone believes that their God wants them to go and kill people, they should really ask themselves if what they are listening is really God.

Why would anyone in this day, have a reason to kill for their religion??
What would they be achieving for their religion??

[Hyperlithe]

don't forget that the colonisation and slave trade was started by people whose intention was to convert the natives or the crusades in the holy lands

Actually the slave trade started within the African tribes, and was taken global by the Arabs, as they saw the possibility to make money...
And that was quite a long time before they were converted to either Christianity or Islam.

[pankaye]

I dont mind having a normal discussion on most points but this one is fecking rediculous.

Any terrorist group is vermin and the killing of them is of no problem to me or my morals.



If someone believes that their God wants them to go and kill people, they should really ask themselves if what they are listening is really God.

Why would anyone in this day, have a reason to kill for their religion??
What would they be achieving for their religion??

I am not trying to justify religious killing and on that point I totally agree with you. If you think God is asking you to kill then you are crazy or on drugs or both. My points really are:
1) It is not Islam or any religion which sponsors hate but some sects within it just as there were say some sects within Christianity (IRA) which promoted terrorism. despite what the media says most Muslims i meet re as scared of terrorism as I am.
2)if you think that during the troubles the army should have screened all Catholics or Irish then it is ok if you think they should screen Muslims

[druadan]

In response to a few points.

The 'Holy' Crusades were a Western response to the encroach of Islam. They were as much about politics and economy as religion. The Islamic invasion of the Balkans was seen as a step too far. Let us not forget that Islam was spread largely by war, Christianity largely by peace (and I'm not religious, before anyone jumps on me).

People as a general rule do not have a problem with the interpretation or application of Islamic requirements in this country. The problem is that minority rights are heavily defended to the point where they encroach on the rights of the majority. Is that right? Muslims are not REQUIRED to wear the hijab. Christians are not REQUIRED to wear a cross. Both are expressions of the person's belief and their interpretation thereof. Are either wrong?

If anything, we should give respect to the fact that Britain is a Christian state (as Israel is a Jewish state, and much of the Middle East are Islamic states). Traditionally, schools have a Church affiliation. Traditionally, we celebrate Easter and Christmas (and more attend Church on these occasions than others). Traditionally, our marriage ceremonies are generally conducted in the Church. Children are generally christened. All of this is true despite many of the people participating in such practices not being practicing Christians (although one could argue that such participation equates to being a practicing Christian). Most Islamic countries would not accept the diversity required to allow such practice to be free if it were against the wishes of the state.

Were the Irish not subjected to more scrutinous checks? I'd be surprised if not. My joining process took a month or so longer for a simple driving ban. As far as I know the system, everyone is required to submit the same details; it is those who submit 'risky' details that may then be subject to further checks. This may include those with Middle Eastern connections, those with Muslim connections, those with Irish connections. Given history, is that unreasonable? If YOU wanted to join the ANA or even Taliban, do you think that such checks on your beliefs/morals/possible motivations would be unreasonable?

To take it to a more fundamental level, do you believe that judgment of such matters should not be left to the elected government of our country?

[_Mark_]

I'm sure every one heard the case of one of the Afghan police shooting a tent full of paras

Do you have a link to this story?

[pankaye]

In response to a few points.

The 'Holy' Crusades were a Western response to the encroach of Islam. They were as much about politics and economy as religion. The Islamic invasion of the Balkans was seen as a step too far.

Most "religious conflict" generally are political rather religious. It is the leaders who cloak heir political agenda with religious cloak to drum up support

[pankaye]

In response to a few points.

People as a general rule do not have a problem with the interpretation or application of Islamic requirements in this country. The problem is that minority rights are heavily defended to the point where they encroach on the rights of the majority. Is that right? Muslims are not REQUIRED to wear the hijab. Christians are not REQUIRED to wear a cross. Both are expressions of the person's belief and their interpretation thereof. Are either wrong?

Yes you are right bout the rights of certain groups encroaching on the rights of the majority. As to whether it is a requirement (or not) to wear hijab i still say it is a matter of interpretation. Are christian required to celebrate the sabbath on a Saturday or Sunday? some christian sect still strictly think Saturday is the sabbath day so for them it i sacrilegious to do any work on Saturday whilst most think it is Sunday. who is right? none of the two (or rather both) because it is a matter of interpretation

[pankaye]

In response to a few points.


Were the Irish not subjected to more scrutinous checks? I'd be surprised if not. My joining process took a month or so longer for a simple driving ban. As far as I know the system, everyone is required to submit the same details; it is those who submit 'risky' details that may then be subject to further checks. This may include those with Middle Eastern connections, those with Muslim connections, those with Irish connections. Given history, is that unreasonable? If YOU wanted to join the ANA or even Taliban, do you think that such checks on your beliefs/morals/possible motivations would be unreasonable?

To take it to a more fundamental level, do you believe that judgment of such matters should not be left to the elected government of our country?

by all means if someone has some sort of connection to Muslim country they should be subject to further checks. But that was not what the initial post was. The initial post was should Muslims be allowed to join the military.

well as to leaving it to the elected government we really don't have too much of a choice do we? if we can't leave it to the government who are we gonna leave it up to?

[_Mark_]

The initial post was should Muslims be allowed to join the military.

And I think the result is, yes, they should, but stricter checks would be justified, and in my opinion possibly a closer eye through the first 12 months.

pankaye, no offence mate but, i struggle to see what you are trying to say sometimes, some of the comments dont really follow on from things in the discussion, but thanks for your other comments.

[pankaye]

pankaye, no offense mate but, i struggle to see what you are trying to say sometimes, some of the comments don't really follow on from things in the discussion.

on that point I totally agree. I find it hard to understand my self sometimes . Well Mark we might disagree on something but I think there is at least one thing we can agree on: anyone who deliberately or carelessly kills innocent people for whatever reason is totally repulsive,

[ramboto]

We cannot always generalize....having an ethnocentric mindset will just fuel more bigotry and conflict....